Strong opinions on climate change are self-reinforcing

Don’t believe it’s real? You won’t see local effects.

We all know it’s hard to change someone’s mind. In an ideal, rational world, a person’s opinion about some topic would be based on several pieces of evidence. If you were to supply that person with several pieces of stronger evidence that point in another direction, you might expect them to accept the new information and agree with you.

However, this is not that world, and rarely do we find ourselves in a debate with Star Trek’s Spock. There are a great many reasons that we behave differently. One is the way we rate incoming information for trustworthiness and importance. Once we form an opinion, we rate information that confirms our opinion more highly than information that challenges it. This is one form of “motivated reasoning.” We like to think we’re right, and so we are motivated to come to the conclusion that the facts are still on our side.

Publicly contentious issues often put a spotlight on these processes—issues like climate change, example. In a recent paper published in Nature Climate Change, researchers from George Mason and Yale explore how motivated reasoning influences whether people believe they have personally experienced the effects of climate change.

When it comes to communicating the science of global warming, a common strategy is to focus on the concrete here-and-now rather than the abstract and distant future. The former is easier for people to relate to and connect with. Glazed eyes are the standard response to complicated graphs of projected sea level rise, with ranges of uncertainty and several scenarios of future emissions. Show somebody that their favorite ice fishing spot is iced over for several fewer weeks each winter than it was in the late 1800s, though, and you might have their attention.

Public polls show that acceptance of a warming climate correlates with agreement that one has personally experienced its effects. That could be affirmation that personal experience is a powerful force for the acceptance of climate science. Obviously, there’s another possibility—that those who accept that the climate is warming are more likely to believe they’ve experienced the effects themselves, whereas those who deny that warming is taking place are unlikely to see evidence of it in daily life. That’s, at least partly, motivated reasoning at work. (And of course, this cuts both ways. Individuals who agree that the Earth is warming may erroneously interpret unrelated events as evidence of that fact.)

The survey used for this study was unique in that the same people were polled twice, two and a half years apart, to see how their views changed over time. For the group as a whole, there was evidence for both possibilities—experience affected acceptance, and acceptance predicted statements about experience.

Fortunately, the details were a bit more interesting than that. When you categorize individuals by engagement—essentially how confident and knowledgeable they feel about the facts of the issue—differences are revealed. For the highly-engaged groups (on both sides), opinions about whether climate is warming appeared to drive reports of personal experience. That is, motivated reasoning was prevalent. On the other hand, experience really did change opinions for the less-engaged group, and motivated reasoning took a back seat.

None of that is truly surprising, but it leads to a couple interesting points. First, the concrete here-and-now communication strategy is probably a good one for those whose opinions aren’t firmly set—fully 75 percent of Americans, according to the polling. But second, that tack is unlikely to get anywhere with the 8 percent or so of highly-engaged Americans who reject the idea of a warming planet, and are highly motivated to disregard anything that says otherwise. That message could only be effective if the messenger is someone those people trust or identify with, as that cultural connection can potentially overcome the motivated reasoning filter.

Of course, the universal human response to all this is to think, “If only everyone were rational—like me!” But such admonitions should be directed inward, as well—Spock appears in very few mirrors.

It's really sad how dramatically simple word choice affected all of this. If they had called it "global climate change" from the beginning exclusively, I think people would be less prone to reject it based on the fact that it's cold this morning. My grandmother often complains that the weather around here has been growing increasingly erratic the past few years: an abnormally severe winter followed by an unusually mild one; hurricanes repeatedly reaching here when they didn't used to; etc etc. But global warming is a conspiracy.

What do you call the category of "denialism" where one accepts that climate changes and has always changed, in part because of the activities of the living organisms on it, which now include man as their major actor, and that climate will thus continue to change ... but we can't and won't really do anything about it, and who cares, so be it?

I'd call them confused.

If you believe that humans are "the major actor" causing the climate to change, but don't believe that changing our behaviour will do anything to stop the climate changing, then your logic has an internal contradiction.

If emissions from industry are the major driver in changing the climate, then obviously reducing those emissions will have an effect.

I think the more interesting question as it relates to climate change, as far as doubters, is what do they have invested in climate change being wrong? In other words, is it ego? Is it something material? Do they fear that climate change will mean they can no longer do what they currently do now?

We asked 380 pedestrians chosen at random in seven cities the following questions:

Using your own experiences, here-and-now experiences, Is gravity more power on feathers or on bowling balls? The results were overwhelmingly bowling balls.Does the earth revolve around the sun, or does the sun revolve around the earth? The majority answered that there experience is that the sun revolves around the earth.Is the earth flat? The results were overwhelmingly yes. Even those who answered they had flown in planes explained their experience was consistent with a flat earth.Can Uri Geller stop watches? The results were overwhelmingly yes.Did John Kerry shirk his duty in Vietnam? The results were overwhelmingly yes.

Are most journalists capable of accurately describing science? The results were overwhelmingly yes.

We concluded that asking people if their current experiences are consistent with some scientific theory or policy we favor is not a logical way of determining the truth of validity of that theory or policy.

I think the more interesting question as it relates to climate change, as far as doubters, is what do they have invested in climate change being wrong? In other words, is it ego? Is it something material? Do they fear that climate change will mean they can no longer do what they currently do now?

The last, yes. The more power we give to government providing "solutions" (to climate change) the less free we will be. Sometimes even the things we do to solve a problem do not result in a solution and at best, do nothing, at worst exacerbate the problem.

What do you call the category of "denialism" where one accepts that climate changes and has always changed, in part because of the activities of the living organisms on it, which now include man as their major actor, and that climate will thus continue to change ... but we can't and won't really do anything about it, and who cares, so be it?

I'd call them confused.

If you believe that humans are "the major actor" causing the climate to change, but don't believe that changing our behaviour will do anything to stop the climate changing, then your logic has an internal contradiction.

If emissions from industry are the major driver in changing the climate, then obviously reducing those emissions will have an effect.

Also, if it is true that we are a major actor and that we would be able to curb the change, we also have to evaluate what sacrifices we need to live with in order to do so. Are you willing to live like a caveman to save the planet? If not, what are you willing to change? How much are the current "green" trends affecting the climate in contrast to political and government coffers and the commercialization of such trends?

Also, if it is true that we are a major actor and that we would be able to curb the change, we also have to evaluate what sacrifices we need to live with in order to do so.

Yes. That's a standard cost-benefit analysis.

Scientists and policy-makers have been doing this rationally for a long time, urging early action, because the earlier we act, the less we will need to do to keep warming within reasonable bounds. If we had acted seriously in the 1990s, the costs would have been quite small, at most a few percent of GDP. We didn't, so the costs of action are higher now, and they will just keep going up.

Eventually, if we do nothing, we will get to the point where only drastic action will work. Once we reach that stage, the costs of doing nothing and the costs of action are both totally unpalatable. At that point, we may well just have to live with a "Plan B" to reduce emissions, like pumping sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere and living with the resulting acid rain.

I believe the science that humans are affecting the climate considerably. However, the exact same behavior that leads the deniers to reject anything that counters their belief is easily seen in many who accept human-made climate change. I've heard people I know tout a local weather phenomenon as proof of global warming, when the truth is they have no idea whether that's true or not. My own instinctive reaction is to feel the same way, and I have to actively overcome that desire. It's just too complex a system to make those snap judgements that we're predisposed to making.

In short, blind belief even in the correct thing probably isn't a good situation, only the lesser of two evils. The mental work involved is considerably less, though, and we've all got too many things to think about to devote a lot of time to each.

Just think of driving. People that like to drive slow: "I was on the freeway, and someone going too fast nearly rearended me."; people that like to drive fast: "I was on the freeway, and someone going to slow merged in front of me and nearly caused me to rear-end them".

Same event, totally different interpretations. It's something we learned about in statistics 10 years ago. (Part of the section on how an improperly [or properly, depending on what you want to happen] question can skew results. It's why a lot of surveys ask essentially the same question different ways.)

8% is actually pretty good. There seems to be a magic number of 20% of people who will believe anything no matter how stupid or kooky. Flat earth, crystal healing, Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, whatever. If you've got it down to 8% that's almost noise level, and you might just write them off like Jenny McCarthy ever being sane about vaccination.

As far as I am aware, no one can point at anything local at this point and say "that was climate change".

I provided one example (linked in para 4). Others would include measureable changes in spring bloom dates (phenology) or growing season, glacial melt if you live near one, thawing permafrost if you live on that, the explosion of the pine beetles in the American West, precipitation trends...

"For the highly-engaged groups (on both sides), opinions about whether climate is warming appeared to drive reports of personal experience. That is, motivated reasoning was prevalent. On the other hand, experience really did change opinions for the less-engaged group, and motivated reasoning took a back seat."

Why is this "motivated reasoning" and not just the rational way to interpret the data?

It is manifestly unreasonable to take local weather phenomenon as evidence for or against global warming. Global warming is a global, long-term weather phenomenon, the sort of thing that is picked up in long-term global trends. You can't infer that warming is happening because you were able to go for a walk in December without a coat anymore than you can infer that is not happening because it happens to be snowing outside.

If I have reason to believe that I have "experienced global warming", it is because the global data gives me reason to believe in global warming, and global warming tells me that there is a good change that the local weather is somewhat more variable than it would otherwise be.

What WOULD be irrational is for me to then take the fact that I have experienced global warming as evidence for global warming. Our reasons for believing in global warming give us reason to think that we have experienced it, not the other way around.

As far as I am aware, no one can point at anything local at this point and say "that was climate change".

I provided one example (linked in para 4). Others would include measureable changes in spring bloom dates (phenology) or growing season, glacial melt if you live near one, thawing permafrost if you live on that, the explosion of the pine beetles in the American West, precipitation trends...

How would anyone know that these are examples of experiencing global warming rather than experiencing local warming? Presumably, because they already have reason to favor the global warming hypothesis. And this is as it should be: our views about global warming should drive our interpretation of our local experiences.

It seems as if it is impossible that there is no climate change. For instance 10 thousand years ago we are told there was an ice age there is not one anymore however it had nothing to do with humanity as we have no evidence of men changing the climate 10 thousand years ago. So climate change is real but is man having an impact on our climate? I believe so as it seems that sea levels are rising and so are co2 levels and the two seem to be joined at the hip. Also the weather data from the poles shows massive warming recently. In theory if the poles melt in the summer this never before seen phenomenon would prove global warming but some will still argue that its not man made. Why because apparently god made the world and only he can change it. So if we all die of warming induced flooding then god was punishing us for our sinful ways I truly despair....

The problem is that "rational thought" is a learned behavior that, like nearly everything else learned, one gets better at with practice. So assuming that reason and/or evidence will convince "the average person" of something is a bit stupid in the first place.

If you don't engage an individual with an argument appropriate to the individual's thoughts and biases, you simply won't convince them. Studies like this only show how a topic is handled, on average, by each individual's thought processes and are effectively useless without knowing more about the actual processes the individuals use.

And my experience is that an interested but disengaged individual, regardless of topic, is less likely to carefully think rationally when given evidence of something - instead they'll just accept that the argument given is rational even if it's not, but is presented as such. Only the scientists and mathematically inclined tend to look for the rational/logical flaws (whether they find them is another matter :-) ).

I think the more interesting question as it relates to climate change, as far as doubters, is what do they have invested in climate change being wrong? In other words, is it ego? Is it something material? Do they fear that climate change will mean they can no longer do what they currently do now?

The last, yes. The more power we give to government providing "solutions" (to climate change) the less free we will be. Sometimes even the things we do to solve a problem do not result in a solution and at best, do nothing, at worst exacerbate the problem.

The problem is that environmentalists have started with the premise that, "If climate change is real, then we must implement all these left-wing policies." Right-wingers respond that, "Since we don't want to implement these left-wing policies, climate change must be false."

People who actually understand science realize that science tells us how the world works, not what we should do about it. At most it tells us the likely consequences of different actions. Deciding which action to take is a matter of politics, economics, and subjective values.

Whenever anyone says, "Science demands that we reduce emissions," they are grossly misrepresenting what science is. Science never demands anything. However, science can say that, "If we continue increasing emissions at current rates, then the global mean temperature will increase by X degrees, and here are the most likely consequences."

If we want to get past denialism, we need to clearly separate objective science from subjective values. Maybe people will then realize that accepting science never reduces one's actual freedom of choice -- it only makes the results of those choices clearer.

*rolls eyes* no one rejects the idea of global warming. They reject the idea that we are to blame. HUGE difference and the author and many others fail to realize this very important distinction. If someone does not believe in "man made" global warming, then no amount of scientific data showing that the earth is warming is going to change that. You can go blue in the face presenting that sort of data, which is mostly all there is, and it doesnt matter to someone has hasnt been convinced that we are behind it. They already know the world is warming, what is in contention is the cause.

I think the more interesting question as it relates to climate change, as far as doubters, is what do they have invested in climate change being wrong? In other words, is it ego? Is it something material? Do they fear that climate change will mean they can no longer do what they currently do now?

The last, yes. The more power we give to government providing "solutions" (to climate change) the less free we will be. Sometimes even the things we do to solve a problem do not result in a solution and at best, do nothing, at worst exacerbate the problem.

The problem is that environmentalists have started with the premise that, "If climate change is real, then we must implement all these left-wing policies." Right-wingers respond that, "Since we don't want to implement these left-wing policies, climate change must be false."

People who actually understand science realize that science tells us how the world works, not what we should do about it. At most it tells us the likely consequences of different actions. Deciding which action to take is a matter of politics, economics, and subjective values.

Whenever anyone says, "Science demands that we reduce emissions," they are grossly misrepresenting what science is. Science never demands anything. However, science can say that, "If we continue increasing emissions at current rates, then the global mean temperature will increase by X degrees, and here are the most likely consequences."

If we want to get past denialism, we need to clearly separate objective science from subjective values. Maybe people will then realize that accepting science never reduces one's actual freedom of choice -- it only makes the results of those choices clearer.

But... There is no left-wing or right-wing in response to science questions. Only factual-based answers.

When the proof - the real, science-based proof, tells us that the only way to combat global warming is to reduce emissions, then that is what we must do. It doesn't really take into account if you're "conservative" or "liberal". We emit too much carbon-dioxide. That's a fact. Now - how do you want to solve that problem without reducing emissions?

*rolls eyes* no one rejects the idea of global warming. They reject the idea that we are to blame. HUGE difference and the author and many others fail to realize this very important distinction. If someone does not believe in "man made" global warming, then no amount of scientific data showing that the earth is warming is going to change that. You can go blue in the face presenting that sort of data, which is mostly all there is, and it doesnt matter to someone has hasnt been convinced that we are behind it. They already know the world is warming, what is in contention is the cause.

Who cares if we're behind it or not? We still have methods to combat it still increasing - and those are really the only means at our disposal. What's the alternative? To sit idly by and wait for the world to end?

When the proof - the real, science-based proof, tells us that the only way to combat global warming is to reduce emissions, then that is what we must do. It doesn't really take into account if you're "conservative" or "liberal". We emit too much carbon-dioxide. That's a fact. Now - how do you want to solve that problem without reducing emissions?

"Too much" is a subjective judgment, not a fact. Science can tell us that our current and projected emissions will result in global warming, and that it is likely to cause a wide variety of effects.

Whether we judge these effects to be positive or negative, and how much weight we place on them is a matter of subjective values. There's no objective measure of whether it's worse to see Tuvalu go underwater or put thousands of coal miners out of work. That's a personal and political value judgment.

More importantly, it's completely separate from the science. That means that even if you're from a politician from West Virginia, you can accept the science without accepting that you need to make a large proportion of your constituency homeless. (In contrast to the current status quo, where even liberal Democrats from West Virginia tend to be climate change deniers...)

*rolls eyes* no one rejects the idea of global warming. They reject the idea that we are to blame. HUGE difference and the author and many others fail to realize this very important distinction. If someone does not believe in "man made" global warming, then no amount of scientific data showing that the earth is warming is going to change that. You can go blue in the face presenting that sort of data, which is mostly all there is, and it doesnt matter to someone has hasnt been convinced that we are behind it. They already know the world is warming, what is in contention is the cause.

Who cares if we're behind it or not? We still have methods to combat it still increasing - and those are really the only means at our disposal. What's the alternative? To sit idly by and wait for the world to end?

If (if) we're not behind it, that means our actions aren't the cause... which means that reducing our actions will obviously not impact it (because as already said, our actions are not the cause). We would have to intentionally take actions that'd result in global cooling in that scenario... which would raise the ethical dilemma of whether or not it's right to take such far-reaching actions.

*rolls eyes* no one rejects the idea of global warming. They reject the idea that we are to blame. HUGE difference and the author and many others fail to realize this very important distinction. If someone does not believe in "man made" global warming, then no amount of scientific data showing that the earth is warming is going to change that. You can go blue in the face presenting that sort of data, which is mostly all there is, and it doesnt matter to someone has hasnt been convinced that we are behind it. They already know the world is warming, what is in contention is the cause.

I take it you are utterly unfamiliar with the actual polling, and didn't notice that I was talking about one of these and not the other.

As best I can tell, this article is an effective argument against its own existence.

On a less humorous note, we get it, Scott. There are climate change deniers out there. Could you possibly accept this and move on?

I'm sure there are other science-related important issues with a large number of deniers. Those deserve mention, and I'd like to be told what those are. Let's agree to check those out for a few weeks, at least, before Ars gets back to beating the climate change drum.

*rolls eyes* no one rejects the idea of global warming. They reject the idea that we are to blame. HUGE difference and the author and many others fail to realize this very important distinction. If someone does not believe in "man made" global warming, then no amount of scientific data showing that the earth is warming is going to change that. You can go blue in the face presenting that sort of data, which is mostly all there is, and it doesnt matter to someone has hasnt been convinced that we are behind it. They already know the world is warming, what is in contention is the cause.

You claim that "no one rejects the idea of global warming; they reject the idea that we are to blame.."But the poster just before you, lebolide, claims that "studies show global warming stopped ~16 years ago.."

So there is kind of a continuum of denial, from:"The planet is not warming." to "Even if the planet is warming, it is not due to massive greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans." to "Even if the planet is warming due to human activities, it is no cause for panic."

Meanwhile, the inexorable and measurable increase in CO2 emissions accelerates, as corroborated by measured decrease in pH of the oceans. And the correlation of atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures is undeniable (except to lebolide and other ostriches). Every new study shows that ice cover is shrinking around the planet, thereby hastening warming. The sea level is rising, measurably and predictably. Every other (than AGW) plausible mechanism for increasing global temperatures has been discredited by climate scientists. And evidence is mounting for harmful effects in the atmosphere (extreme weather events), in the oceans (ruinous impact on shellfish farming), and on land (increasing salinity of water tables and decreasing snowpack.)

Wherever a person is on the continuum of denial, the science does not support their position.